Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.09 seconds)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Patrica Jean Mahajan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 July, 2002
cites
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
Thereafter the observations made in the case of Kanshnuma Begum (Supra)
have been quoted. After so much of discussion on the point of rate of
interest and after mentioning the decisions relied upon by both the sides
on their part, it could not be said that rate of interest was not in
dispute before the Court. As indicated earlier the observation is not
indicated to have been made in reference to any statement of the counsel
for the party nor it comes out that the respective parties may not have
advanced arguments for maintaining the rate of interest as awarded and the
other party for reducing the rate of interest. In the light of the position
indicated above, we do not think it will be possible to shut out the
Insurance Company from urging before us that lesser rate of interest should
have been awarded in place of 12% as awarded by the High Court.
Section 1 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
A. Robert vs The United Insurance Co. Ltd on 27 August, 1999
Before us
also, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred the decision
of this Court reported in [1999] 8 SCC 226-A Robert v. Insurance Company
Limited to indicate that interest at the rate 6% was awarded in that case.
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
Another decision which
has been referred to is reported in [1995] 1 SCC 551-R.D. Hattangadi v.
Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. more particularly Para 18 of the
judgment where it has been held that no interest is awardable on the amount
of future expenditure. It is further observed: "It need not be pointed out
that interest is to be paid over the amount which has become payable on the
date of award and not which is to be paid for expenditures to be incurred
in future" But it is not indicated by the learned counsel for the appellant
Insurance Company as to which is that amount out of the amount awarded
which is on account of future expenditure yet to be incurred by the
claimants. The interest is to be awarded on the amount which is payable on
the date of the award. It is also to be noted that in some cases interest
at the rate of 6% was awarded. This case however does not help the
appellant Insurance Company.